NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DULCE MARIA GARCIA VALDEZ, No. 18-72155
Petitioner, Agency No. A208-118-305
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 15, 2019**
Before: SCHRODER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Dulce Maria Garcia Valdez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm
Garcia Valdez suffered in Mexico did not rise to the level of persecution. See Lim
v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing alone . . . constitute
past persecution in only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so
menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.” (quotation and citation
omitted)). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that
Garcia Valdez failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility
of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Garcia Valdez’s asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Garcia Valdez failed to establish eligibility for asylum,
she failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
In her opening brief, Garcia Valdez fails to challenge the agency’s denial of
CAT relief; thus, it is waived. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174,
2 18-72155
1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in
waiver).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 18-72155